2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10992-012-9247-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

R and Relevance Principle Revisited

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This section summarizes our work in [22]. More exactly, we briefly recall new strong and weak relevance principles introduced in [22], that is, NSRP and NWRP, because they are unfamiliar to the readers. (As we mentioned in footnote 2, we assumed that formulas such as .…”
Section: Propositional Constants and New Relevance Principlesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This section summarizes our work in [22]. More exactly, we briefly recall new strong and weak relevance principles introduced in [22], that is, NSRP and NWRP, because they are unfamiliar to the readers. (As we mentioned in footnote 2, we assumed that formulas such as .…”
Section: Propositional Constants and New Relevance Principlesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Very recently, the present author [22] introduced new strong and weak relevance principles because the principles SRP and WRP do not work on relevance systems with propositional constants (see Galatos, Jipsen, Kowalski, and Ono [11] and Restall [20]). According to him, a system is said to be strongly relevant if it satisfies the new strong relevance principle (NSRP) in [22] that ' ! is a theorem only if ' and either explicitly or strong implicitly share a propositional variable, and weakly relevant if it satisfies the new weak relevance principle (NWRP) that ' !…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…32-33) and it has become since then a folklore necessary (though not sufficient) requirement for any formal system of relevant logic. The philosophical motivation behind it is quite natural: for an implication to be relevant the antecedent better have something in common with the consequent (a recent place where related issues have been studied is [12]). A solid survey where this and many other topics in relevant logic are discussed is [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When our language has ⊥, the principle fails quite easily since ⊥ → θ (for arbitrary θ) would be a theorem, tempting one to claim that no system involving ⊥ should qualify as a system of relevant logic. However, Yang [31] has suggested recently the strong implicit relevance property as a nice substitute of the variable sharing property that would allow for systems containing ⊥. 5 See also the bi-theories in [23].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%